Saturday, September 29, 2012

Douglas Axe Explains Molecular Evolution

There are several dozen scientists and graduate students in my department studying various aspects of protein evolution, structure, and folding. They've published dozens of papers but, apparently, they never realized that what they're studying is impossible. Douglas Axe, a leading Intelligent Design Creationist, sets them straight.

Douglas Axe is a genuine researcher employed by a famous research institute. He's only interested in the truth.

The IDiots have told us time and time again that what they do is genuine science. I'm sure his salary wouldn't be the least bit affected even if he were to discover that intelligent design is falsified. :-)

Just heard Professor Douglas Axe speak at the C4ID Conference along with Professor John Lennox. I don't really care whether he's a Creationist or not - his talks raised some pretty decent issues regarding Evolutionary hypothesis as the explanation of the processes that go on in living cells. It's at least worthy of debate.

Since when did a belief in a higher intelligence, stifle Scientific discovery? It didn't stop founding fathers of Scientific thinking such as Galileo, Newton or Boyle.They weren't afraid to challenge the accepted thinking, so why should anyone these days?

What was not suprising was to talks to Darwinists, Molecular Biologists & researchers including one who is currently researching Evolutionary Algorithims - attending the conference unbeknown to their employers and wishing to remain anonymous for fear of their livelihoods & reputations.

I was reminded of the film by Ben Stein Expelled -

I thought Science was about asking questions - not only being allowed to ask certain types of questions that don't challenge accepted theories.

Pay attention would you? He's saying that a general process is impossible while Moran's students have been documenting exactly how it happens. To not know about this would make him incompetent in this line of work, but I think the truth is that he prefers to just pretend that this is a lofty question, rather than beginner's tasks, when he's talking to an audience that will accept that based on authority.

At current academia in general doesn't seem to have any problem employing a person with the mental facilities to to carry out education and research tasks within the guidelines of accepted science, regardless of whether they think it has any bearing on reality. Just to make sure that sinks in: they let you believe anything you want to so long as you don't try to put it into your work as if it is supported by evidence. Are you saying that these people are afraid to say that they are Christians or that they are afraid to conclude their writings with "therefore god did it"?

-

The questions part of science isn't the issue here. What gets creationists fired is not asking mandatory questions (such as pushing a paper through some back door in the review process because it couldn't legitimately pass,) or jumping to unsupported conclusions. You see, after you ask these questions you've actually got to check what the tangible universe has to say in regards to them.

Well, that tells us pretty much all we need to know about your intellectual ability regarding this subject. That film was made by and for idiots. If you think you are learning about evolution by watching Expelled and listening to Douglas Axe - man, are you off the tracks. You are imbibing an almost entirely erroneous version of evolutionary theory. The 'problems' these people think they have identified in evolutionary theory are actually problems with their own understanding of it.

Here's a good laugh to be had at Axe and his co-workers from the Biologic Institute. Back in 2007 Professor Daniel Brooks of the University of Toronto attended the "Wistar Retrospective Symposium' organized by IDiots. He later blogged about it on Panda's Thumb:http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html

Dr. Ann Gauger one of Axe's colleagues at the Biologic Institute was a speaker. Daniel Brooks reports that at the end of her talk:

"She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information."

Since when did a belief in a higher intelligence, stifle Scientific discovery?

At best, it was irrelevant. What scientific insight has ever been gained from such a belief? At worst, it prevented people from looking for a naturalistic explanation if they already had a pseudo-explanation (obscurum per obscurius). No, wait, that wasn't quite the worst. The worst was what happened to some people who held opinions contrary to the faith of the church as regards "a higher intelligence".

Doctors in the early 1800's thought women died in maternity wards because God cursed Eve for eating an apple. They wouldn't believe that, between sticking their hands into vaginas, it might be a good idea to wash their hands once in a while. How much of a science stopper was that?

JB's comment is interesting as it succinctly combines several creationist rhetorical tricks. For practice, let's rehearse some useful responses.

JB: "I was reminded of the film by Ben Stein Expelled -

I thought Science was about asking questions - not only being allowed to ask certain types of questions that don't challenge accepted theories."

Leaving aside the fact that every frame of Expelled was a lie, note the rhetorical trick here. ID creationists like Luskin, Wells, and increasingly Axe and Gauger, tell lies for a living about verifiable facts. They make factual statements that are false.

At this pro-science blog and others, we catch them making factually false statements every day. When we catch them saying things that are factually false, they say, "I thought Science was about asking questions - not only being allowed to ask certain types of questions..."

Seriously, fuck you. You assholes never ask questions. Do you think we don't notice your bait and switch? You were pretending to make factual statements, not asking questions; but you were lying and we caught you, and you liars respond by saying, "I thought Science was about asking questions..."

JB: I don't really care whether he's a Creationist or not

We do. Creationists have promoted one hoax after another, from the Paluxy "Man Tracks" to the Ica stones to Jonathan Wells' "Peppered Moths don't rest on trees" and "scientists equated Junk = non-coding DNA." We know from experience that most creationists are either too ignorant to know they're ignorant, or pathological liars, or both. So it matters to us.

It's at least worthy of debate.

Science debates should be about different interpretations of facts-- not outright lying, like we get from Casey Luskin and Jonathan Wells, and their claims that "scientists equated Junk = non-coding DNA."

Luskin recently claimed that Homo habilis skulls were most similar to baboons (!) and took a quote about the discovery of OH-62 at Olduvai by Tim White, and told his readers that it was about the discovery of Lucy by Johanson at Hadar.

What are we supposed to debate about, with your lying, unhinged authorities?

JB: Since when did a belief in a higher intelligence, stifle Scientific discovery? It didn't stop founding fathers of Scientific thinking such as Galileo, Newton or Boyle.

Again, straw man. You are conflating "belief in a higher intelligence" with creationism.

Creationism necessarily involves 1. Lying about factual matters, in order to create bullshit "problems for evolution" and then 2. explaining all "scientific mysteries", both real ones and fraudulent ones concocted by creationists, by means of "God makes it so."

Explaining all "scientific mysteries", real and fraudulent, by invoking God-of-the-gaps is a science stopper. Moreover, it gives creationists an incentive to lie in order to create the appearance of more scientific mysteries than actually exist.

As for real scientific mysteries, Newton couldn't explain how the Solar System could remain stable, because he didn't understand conservation of energy. So he invoked divine intervention to explain the solar system's stability.

When Newton tried to find an equation to predict phenomena, he was productive. When he invoked God-of-the-gaps, his research was stifled and he failed.

JB: They [Galileo, Newton, Boyle] weren't afraid to challenge the accepted thinking, so why should anyone these days?

Actually, Galileo and Newton were both terrified they would be killed by their church because their ideas challenged the mandated interpretation of the Bible. Did you forget that part?

Did you forget that Church authorities threatened Galileo with torture and death, a la what was done to Giordano Bruno, and that Galileo recanted his beliefs?

Did you forget that Newton didn't believe in the Trinity, and had to conceal his beliefs his entire life because Christians would have executed him if he had expressed his beliefs publicly?

JB: "What was not suprising was to talks to Darwinists, Molecular Biologists & researchers including one who is currently researching Evolutionary Algorithims - attending the conference unbeknown to their employers and wishing to remain anonymous for fear of their livelihoods & reputations.

Somebody's lying here. I expect that you were talking to an UDite, someone from Uncommon Descent. A lot of IDers are IT professionals who try to pass themselves off as scientists because they control the office's administrator password.

We don't believe your stories about creationist "scientists" who are suppressed by the system. Au contraire, Christian schools around the country are constantly firing professors for believing in theistic evolution or for being OECs.

Remember that William Dembski was threatened with being fired from the seminary he works at, because he didn't believe Noah's Flood was global? He knuckled under and recanted, deciding Noah's Flood was global, not because of the geology, but because of the Scripture and the threat of firing.

There are many, many other examples of Christian schools firing profs, and all YEC institutions force their students and "scientists" (and even little kids at science fairs!) to sign statements of belief.

There's no comparison between conservative Christianity and evolution in terms of ferocious, narrow-minded intolerance and suppression of dissent.

Diogenes the Phsyco accuses you of talking to the Udites at Uncommon Descent, but fails to mention he recently has been 'talking' to them, start at 486 > http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-434525

Also, Diogenes you have another rebuttal @ 684, are you going to go there and finished what you started, or hide out here where your groupies protect and never disagree with you.

Hey Anonymous (if that is your real name) - perhaps you could rebut what Diogenes has written. What Diogenes did was a present a point by point deconstruction of the intellectually dishonest nonsense JB posted. Same old creationist BS, which has been done to death. Please learn the difference between reasoning and rationalizing.

Hey Anonymous (if that is your real name) - perhaps you could rebut what Diogenes has written. What Diogenes did was a present a point by point deconstruction of the intellectually dishonest nonsense JB posted. Same old creationist BS, which has been done to death. Please learn the difference between reasoning and rationalizing.

Just heard Professor Douglas Axe speak at the C4ID Conference along with Professor John Lennox. I don't really care whether he's a Creationist or not - his talks raised some pretty decent issues regarding Evolutionary hypothesis as the explanation of the processes that go on in living cells.

You would know they were "pretty decent issues" based on what knowledge of the subject? "Sounds good to me" doesn't qualify.

Since when did a belief in a higher intelligence, stifle Scientific discovery? It didn't stop founding fathers of Scientific thinking such as Galileo, Newton or Boyle.They weren't afraid to challenge the accepted thinking, so why should anyone these days?

Someone challenging the accepted thinking is not therefore a new Galileo, Newton or Boyle. As Carl Sagan memorably wrote: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

When you find someone who has accomplishments in evolutionary biology comparable to the earthshaking contributions of the scientists you named, then we will be happy to listen to his overturning of the accepted wisdom. Oh, wait - we already have. The guy's name was Darwin. And the accepted wisdom he overturned is the type of nonsense Doug Axe and his ilk are still trying to bring back more than 150 years later.

Anonymous: Also, Diogenes you have another rebuttal @ 684, are you going to go there and finished what you started, or hide out here where your groupies protect and never disagree with you.

What's really funny is that Anonymous claims I comment here because I have "groupies" here to protect me!

That's funny, because over at Ewan Birney's blog, another creationist "Misc" just accused me of commenting here because I am the groupie.

Is is possible for me to comment because I AM a groupie here and also because I HAVE groupies at the same time? I wish creationists would get their ad hominems straight.

Note here that our Anonymous friend is daring me to go back to UD where I kicked some tail a couple weeks ago-- and he asserts that a scary refutation of my refutation is to be found at comment #684. So I'm supposed to sort through ~180 comments since the last time I commented there.

The creationist "Misc" at Ewan's blog makes the same demand: I must return to UD!

"Misc" thinks I have many names, and that I am everyone he meets on the Internet. Psychologists call that Fregoli delusion.

Misc at Ewan's blog:

Hey Igor, I mean L Moreau, I mean, Diogenes,

...And yeah, I'm not revealing your real name because of course you will lie and say it isn't you, just like Igor and L Moreau are not you. You're a joke and fortunately a no body in the world of Science, except a Larry Moran groupie kicking and screaming on a sinking ship.

...Hey, why don't go back to UD and finish what you started, oh yeah, you ran off with your tail between your legs...

Honestly I'm pretty happy to listen to anybody claiming accepted wisdom is wrong so long as they go to the trouble of describing some of the shortcomings of it, how they have tested their competing idea for how reality works, and what new ways we can use it.

Doesn't necessarily mean I'll accept what they're saying; no sense shutting off critical thinking right when somebody comes along making big claims. Gotta check that they can defend their claims against a little scrutiny and even then it's just a "sounds plausible, let's see if you can actually get the experts to accept it."

That is because I am the same person you moron, and yes you are a Larry Moran groupie and also have groupies such as NE, Igor and L Moreau to name a few. Oh wait, scratch Igor and L Moreau, because they are you.

After Shapiro posted the ENCODE blog on you, you whined up and down you were 'banned' from this blog, (which I don't believe, further supported by Shapiro himself stating he did not 'ban' you) so first L Moreau shows up, which I (rjop) confront, and of course they run, then Igor immediately shows up, > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/further-thoughts-on-the-e_b_1893984.html (Notice the only 'fan' of Igor and L Moreau are Diogenes, funny that.

Also, notice Igor's venomous spewage regarding people of faith here> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/could-bill-nye-have-done-_b_1919558.html which is very similar to Dio's spewage above. (Note; this blog focuses on Kwok's comments, such as your's did on ENCODE. Wonder why Kwok wasn't banned?

Of course again your groupies here will defend you, but any objective person whom may read this will see my points are valid.

As far as the person on the Christian Post, there is someone there using their real name with a strikingly similar communication pattern as you, such as using the phrase "Waaaahhhh", calling people liars on a regular basis, and has an over the top hate with anything to do with ID, to mention a few.

So why don't you tell me your fist name so I can put the CP suspicions to rest. Of course I have no way of knowing your lying about your real name, but perhaps someone here knows your real name.

Claudia: Your first link seems to just be arguments that junk DNA makes transposons and mutations less dangerous. Since you've complained about not being told specifically why it doesn't make sense a quick primer on crap that gets into your DNA: longer stretches of DNA have more mutations, not the same number spread out. You have a similar situation with transposons, but instead you are specifically carrying a lot of them around in a genome so you don't just have lethal defects when a transposon arises from mutation and starts hopping around. I'm not sure if multiplying the DNA would also mean multiplying viral insertions but faulty viral insertions seem like a really negligible issue compared to when these viruses actually succeed in propagating themselves.

Your second link at least mentions those diseases but you seem to think that instead of targeting our time and money to the most promising areas, we should instead spread it evenly everywhere. Looking at it as a zero sum game that would be a horrible waste that slowed our efforts drastically, and you don't have another option for how to look at it unless you think we can multiply the total amount of funding somehow.

*I prefer liberal support for these kinds of things over the very conservative "I only want to give money to things I can see the immediate applications of and they look like they will have big profits," but those sorts of people have some say in where the money goes so we have to work with what we get. Even if we put the kinds of funds into research I would prefer we still couldn't spread it evenly everywhere.

So on the assumption that you understand that problem/I explained it well, we've got to have evidence based science. Gasp! What a crazy idea this is! No, that makes perfect sense, you don't do anyone a favor by rejecting the general consensus of experts and trying to bypass them rather than convincing them the old fashioned way, and you make yourself look like a kook in the process if you try to.

If you're right about this being the wrong approach and you're somehow right about the genetics behind these diseases even though your proposed mechanism ought only to amplify the problem, then yes, we could save the lives of lots of smiling children by doing things your way. That makes it that much more your responsibility to demonstrate that you're on to something. Or failing that you can learn the basics on why people think your idea doesn't make any sense, accept that, and go exploring some other phenomenon that you don't think mainstream science can account for.

Look anonymous, I do not know how to tell you this, but I am nothing of Diogenes. The guy has been posting here kinda recently, so I don't even know him (or her, but Diogenes is a male name, so I just went with it). Since you are still in kinder garden, I double dare you to show me one instance where I applaud anything Diogenes has said. Just once.

Just to be clear. In the other comments I was not defending him. He could that himself if need be. I was just pointing you to some better understanding of reading comprehension. The only other thing I did was point to Diogenes about how creationists mistake the meanings of "quoting" and "quote-mining." That because he was writing these long explanations for you, not noticing that these words were being wasted because you lack the most basic reading comprehension abilities.

That was all. I doubt any of it counts as me having built a fan club for Diogenes or anybody else.

I know, I know. My own contradiction here was to write to you knowing that you will not understand half a sentence. But I wrote this already. So there you are. Maybe when you grow up you will be able to understand it.

"is daring me to go back to UD where I kicked some tail a couple weeks ago-- and he (that would be she) asserts that a scary refutation of my refutation is to be found at comment #684. So I'm supposed to sort through ~180 comments since the last time I commented there"

As you say Diogenes, and who ever else you are.. WAAAHHHH! Oh wait, your back over at UD as we speak spewing more of your BS, after you just whined about it above. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-sets-it-out-step-by-step/#comment-435395

@ NE what does "but I am nothing of Diogenes" even mean?

"I double dare you to show me one instance where I applaud anything Diogenes has said"

Your kidding right? Was it another Negative Entropy who had to jump in to 'protect' little Diogenes and spent days defending and siding with him on Moran's Ewan blog. Great, another BS'er who can't keep their shit straight. You thugs are a complete Joke.

Anonymous:That is because I am the same person you moron, and yes you are a Larry Moran groupie and also have groupies such as NE, Igor and L Moreau to name a few. Oh wait, scratch Igor and L Moreau, because they are you.

I asked you directly what was your ID on other forums and you wouldn't tell me, you wanted me to play Sherlock Holmes and deduce your ID.

Indeed, you accused me of misrepresenting your words on other blogs where your ID is different, but you wouldn't tell me your ID there for comparison.

Now you have the chutzpah to call me names because I'm not 100% sure about YOUR THIRD IDENTITY, "Misc" at Ewan Birney's blog? Fuck you. I asked you what was your ID and you wouldn't tell me.

You, Mr. Fuckhole, have multiple identities, not me, and you have chutzpah to accuse ME of having multiple identities, when YOU are the one with THREE IDENTITIES and counting-- apparently Anonymous here is not just "rjop" at Mike White's blog, but also "Misc" at Ewan Birney's blog.

Now this asshole expects me to play Sherlock fucking Holmes and figure out all his pseudonyms.

Of course I suspected you were "Misc" at Birney's blog, I suspected it, but unlike you, I don't assume everyone I meet is the same person.

You, on the other hand, have Fregoli delusion and think everyone is ME.

"So why don't you tell me your fist name so I can put the CP [Christian Post] suspicions to rest."

Both links in my comment were indented to direct readers at some of my previous comments claiming that the prion hypothecs and protein misfolding theory are flawed.

You can read a detailed description of this claim, as well as an alternative model on the etiology of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), Huntington’s disease (HD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD-U), Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), and other neurodegenerative disorders at: http://www.alzforum.org/res/adh/cur/bandea/default.asp

According to this model, the primary proteins implicated in these diseases, including Aβ, tau, α-synuclein, huntingtin, TDP-43 and PrP, are members of the innate immune system and their activity and assembly into oligomers and amyloids are not protein misfolding events or prion activities, as proposed by the protein misfolding concept and the prion hypothesis, but part of their repertoire of immune functions.

Unlike the prion hypothecs and protein misfolding theory, this new model is fully consistent with and supported by the current experimental data and observations, and it makes biological and evolutionary sense. I would appreciate if you, Larry and other readers will evaluate this model and share your thoughts. In particular, I’m looking for data, observations, and arguments that are not consistent with, or contradict this model.

"I asked you directly what was your ID on other forums and you wouldn't tell me"

No you have not, you only asked me on one, the Ewan blog here. Which directly after asking, you state I claimed ENCODE disproved Junk DNA. If you didn't know who I was, how do you know what I claimed?

Also, can you cite these 'other forums' with links included, where you asked me directly what my ID was? Also, why will you not answer my question, when you demand yours to be answered? Therefore, my suspicions and charges stand.

"Indeed, you accused me of misrepresenting your words on other blogs where your ID is different, but you wouldn't tell me your ID there for comparison."

What 'other' blogs? Again, there is only one in which you directly asked me this question.

Now you have the chutzpah to call me names because I'm not 100% sure about YOUR THIRD IDENTITY

Ahh poor baby, after we witness, for days, your berating, hostile and belittling comments, you now act like a spoiled child because I called you a name, sniffle, sniffle. Shall I call the virtual waaaahhhmbulance for you? Also, for the record, I didn't call you a name because you weren't 100% sure of my ID, I called you a name because you are an ass hole who is completely FoS, plain and simple.

You, Mr. Fuckhole, have multiple identities, not me, and you have chutzpah to accuse ME of having multiple identities, when YOU are the one with THREE IDENTITIES and counting-- apparently Anonymous here is not just "rjop" at Mike White's blog, but also "Misc" at Ewan Birney's blog.

Yes, but I have no problem stating they are me, you on the other hand lie about it.

You, on the other hand, have Fregoli delusion and think everyone is ME

"Just to be clear. In the other comments I was not defending him. He could that himself if need be

Say what?

The rest of your response is nothing but the same old yada yada, blah blah. Anyone can easily view your so called non defense of Diogenes and decide for themselves. You weren't even part of the discussion over at HP, yet, you for some reason think you can just jump in with YOUR kinder garden insults... Yawn.

"I asked you directly what was your ID on other forums and you wouldn't tell me"

Anonymous said:

"No you have not, you only asked me on one, the Ewan blog here."

Anonymous, rjop, Misc, and whatever other labels you go by,

The statement by Diogenes above means that he asked you what your ID is on other forums. You're incorrectly reading it as:

I asked you directly on other forums, what was your ID, and you wouldn't tell me.

But, as anyone with a clue can see, it isn't written that way. Let's take another look at it:

"I asked you directly what was your ID on other forums and you wouldn't tell me"

And with slight modification, to help you understand:

I asked you directly, what was your ID on other forums, and you wouldn't tell me.

Are you starting to get it?

Yeah, Diogenes didn't put commas in it but that's because it really doesn't need them. I suppose it could be read the way you read it (which is obviously incorrect) or the way Diogenes wrote it and meant it (which is the way I read it), but you're determined to stick to your incorrect reading even after Diogenes has pointed out what he meant.

Your reading comprehension really does need some improvement. Either that or you're deliberately misreading that statement because you're pissed at Diogenes (and some others) because they've been criticizing some aspects of the Encode claims. It's apparent that you want the Encode claims (especially regarding "function") to be fully accepted by all evolutionary biologists because you think it would bolster the argument for the alleged specialness and perfection of humans, as allegedly designed/created by your chosen, alleged god yhwh. Yeah, alleged is all it is. There's no evidence, no matter what Encode found.

Another reason you would deliberately misread (or redefine) that statement is because Diogenes has given Shapiro a hard time and you obviously like Shapiro. It probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that you're a Shapiro fan or groupie.

After all is said and done about that statement by Diogenes, or any other statements you have a problem with, there still isn't any evidence of any god(s), and neither Encode nor anyone is going to find any. That is what is really bugging you, isn't it?

Add The whole truth to Diogenes defender groupies who was not part of the disputed discussions with more BS added to the pot. What's the matter TWT, you don't think Diogenes can can stand on his own, you have to help him? And why do you keep bringing God up here and the other forum? Perhaps you are teetering on the edge, such as this poor chap >

Also, TWT, perhaps you should go over to UD and defend Diogenes, I think he needs you more there then against little Ole' Me. But of course you won't, as it is much easier to hide out here amongst your echo chamber fellows.

TWT is just attempting the same thing I did, to teach you reading comprehension, not to defend Diogenes.

As for those remarks you made about my half sentences, I have not pointed out any of your grammatical and spelling mistakes. Do you know why? Well, since I understood what you said, why bother being the grammar/spelling diva. After all, neither of us is checking and re-checking our comments before sending them, and it shows.

Yep, I jumped at the conversation, but only to point to a source of misunderstanding: your reading comprehension disabilities. I thought that, with that problem pointed out, you then making an effort to understand rather than put meanings that were not there, might help you. With honest and proper understanding, you might as well be able to make a valid point. But if your points will all be based on misconceptions and faulty reading comprehension, well, there's not much validity to take from them. Right?

Ups. I did it again. Too much for your little mind. Maybe you can keep this idea in mind instead: reading comprehension.

If you're a teacher, I will be sure to keep my kids far away from you. AS for 'not defending Diogenes, you sure seem worried about not 'defending Diogenes, so much so, you keep telling me over and over, me thinks you protest too much.

"Also, TWT, perhaps you should go over to UD and defend Diogenes, I think he needs you more there then against little Ole' Me. But of course you won't, as it is much easier to hide out here amongst your echo chamber fellows."

UD won't allow me (and a lot of other people) to post comments there. It's you IDiot creationists who are hiding in echo chambers. Reality, facts, evidence, and truth scares the shit out of you hypocritical cowards. You live in fear and control and promote fear and control. Your entire belief system is based on fear and control, and you see reality and science as a threat to your dominionist agenda.

If you aren't afraid and actually care about open and honest discussion, why don't you try real hard to get UD and other creationist sites/blogs (like DI, AIG, etc.) to allow comments, including dissenting ones, on all of their articles and to stop blocking and banning people simply because they ask questions and/or challenge the creationist party line?

And Negative Entropy was right when he said this:

"TWT is just attempting the same thing I did, to teach you reading comprehension, not to defend Diogenes."

It really doesn't matter who wrote the statement(s) you've misread and/or redefined. What matters is that you're picking fights over trivial things and your misconceptions and/or re-definitions, and you're playing games with what's actually bugging you. Why don't you just come out and say what you believe and what you think the alleged, so-called paradigm shift will do or prove? From what to what, based on what?

You have children? How come then that your mental states show you to be still in kinder garden? Anyway, I understand that you fear that if your kids learn how to read properly, how to develop their own ideas, and how to follow an argument, they might quickly notice that you can't read, that you can't think, and that you are full of crap. However, I am convinced that keeping children in ignorance should be considered child abuse.

UD won't allow me (and a lot of other people) to post comments there. It's you IDiot creationists who are hiding in echo chambers. Reality, facts, evidence, and truth scares the shit out of you hypocritical cowards. You live in fear and control and promote fear and control. Your entire belief system is based on fear and control, and you see reality and science as a threat to your dominionist agenda.

If you aren't afraid and actually care about open and honest discussion, why don't you try real hard to get UD and other creationist sites/blogs (like DI, AIG, etc.) to allow comments, including dissenting ones

I virtually have no Idea what you are talking about with your repetitive drum beat of 'fear and control'. As far as UD allowing comments, the very person you defend is there now, oops. Funny how Matzke and Moran and many other's have not been banned, perhaps it has to do with you, not dissenting views.

Oh, right, because telling them that there's a god who watches them every step of the way and will burn them for eternity unless they believe in him, love him, and accept his "gift" is so healthy and edifying.

-----

(It should be "undirected forces," or "natural events," rather than "accidents." But I rather teach thinking and scientific understanding, rather than present things as mere facts. This is the evidence, what can we make of it. Correcting flawed logic and assumptions as we go about it. But you would not understand what I am talking about.)

Of course still undirected (a question of focus, gravitation has a direction, entropy ensures a direction for energy flow, but you would not understand that either). My complain was not really the accidental part (there's lots of accidents in evolutionary history), but that your statement was incomplete. I have nothing to say to Larry. He has his way of describing things, I have mine. There's this thing called semantics, the study of meaning. It is about being clear on what you mean. I am not talking about some gods directing anything. I am talking about natural phenomena working the way natural phenomena work. There's a lot of accidents in natural phenomena, but that's not all there is to it.

You see no difference between burning in hell and turning to worm food? Eternal unbearable pain is the same as no pain at all? Wow. Eternal awareness that you do not exist any longer? How can you be aware that you do not exist? You certainly have issues beyond your reading incomprehension.

The reason I said the awareness you no longer exist is I have heard some ND stories where people experienced an acute conscience awareness their state of existence was no more. Perhaps this awareness enters into eternity. My point is, if there is hell, the burning you describe could attributed to many things. Also, why are you worried about it, I'm sure you will get your hearts desire i.e. turn to worm food. Enjoy it.

"natural phenomena working"

Why would 'natural phenomena' desire to 'work' on anything, and why would it care?

It is nonsense to tell me that people get aware of not existing. You were attributing such a fear to the way you suppose I think. Nothing in the way I think should make you suppose that I think that non-existence and awareness can go together. It's obvious nonsense. So, besides your reading comprehension you have problems with logic.

I am not worried about hell and such. Can't you read? I made the point, sarcastically, that it must be so healthy and edifying to tell that to children. Reading comprehension Anus!

When did I say anything about natural phenomena desiring anything? When did I say anything about natural phenomena caring? Again, reading comprehension. You need it badly.

Now, truly truly truly seriously, you have problems with reading comprehension. I truly truly am not being facetious. But I have seen so many obvious mistakes ... I seriously understand how the sentences you mistake can be mistaken, but I truly truly truly think that if you aimed at understanding first, rather than on being combative, and be combative second (if so you desire), you would do way much better and attract much less comments like mine.

I don't know what he meant in context. If he meant it in the context of fossils, then he is another lying piece of shit. If he wants more recent transitions, he should look at that paper on skull variations in dogs before he again displays his ignorance of all sciences.

I would assume from exchanges with Axe and Gauger that he'd be referring to transitions of physical form that have a known molecular basis. They both like to emphasise that if functional transitions are aided by positive selection (which they assume is necessary because they don't understand neutral evolution and because they assume a teleological and Panglossian view of human biology) then the order that mutations arise in would be of great importance. Therefore, in their worldview, science has explained nothing of substance until it demonstrates the precise mutations that occurred, the order in which they occurred, their phenotypic effects and the waiting times needed for each to occur. Each will go to fixation in a nice, orderly fashion and then the population waits for the next pre-ordained mutation to occur.

I have tried discussing this with them elsewhere, but they have no interest in understanding that this view of evolution would be incorrect even for bacteria, let alone eukaryotes, let alone vertebrates...

Their take-home message is that if humans don't evolve like idealised populations that could have been imagined in the 1930s then "Darwinism" is a hoax.

So their point is, that 2010-era data does not fit 1900-era theory. Therefore, "Darwinism" is a hoax.

Besides ignoring neutral theory, they invoke the Lottery Winner Fallacy for MOST genetic differences between humans and chimps, and, as you pointed out on your blog, and as PZ Myers pointed out 5 years ago on Panda's Thumb, they completely ignore the Cousin Problem.

By ignoring the Cousin Problem, I mean: they think that "Darwinism" means a lobster turned into a baby. But it is not possible by surgery to turn a lobster into a baby. Therefore "Darwinism" is disproven.

Questioning the science and the rationale behind two of the most studied cases of ”protein evolution, structure, and folding” should be an alerting and concerning issue, to say the least, particularly considering that these devastating diseases affect the life of millions of people.

As mentioned in his post, Larry he has several dozen colleagues in his department who study various aspects of protein evolution, structure, and folding. It would be great to have Larry and his colleagues evaluate my contention that the prion phenomenon and protein misfolding concept are flawed.

In addition to the claim that the prion hypothesis and protein misfolding theory are flawed, I proposed that the primary proteins implicated in these diseases, including Aβ, tau, α-synuclein, huntingtin, TDP-43 and PrP, are members of the innate immune system and their activity and assembly into oligomers and amyloids are not protein misfolding events or prion activities, as proposed by the protein misfolding concept and the prion hypothesis, but part of their repertoire of immune functions.

Unlike the prion hypothesis and protein misfolding theory, this new model is fully consistent with and supported by the current experimental data and observations, and it makes biological and evolutionary sense.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts on this model; in particular, I’m looking for data, observations, and arguments that contradict it.

Mr Axe is a articulate and knowledgable person.leave it to the people to decide if he makes a good case.

He does make a mistake in which he shows that he believes like forms equals like origins.Yet this is just lines of reasoning.For example people looking like apes is just a hunch of a common link. its not evidence.we are made in God's image but our bodies are entirely of the equations of nature.We couldn't have a body not like the rest of biology and so simply we have the best body for a being like ourselves.The ape body is the best.It could only be that we look like nature in all ways and have everything the same.There are no other options for us if we are to be within natures laws.yet we are not biologically related to primates.Its been a false logic and hunch to be persuaded we are related because of like form and feathers with primates.This thinking does affect ID folk too much.YEC has a witness to the origins and so boundaries.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.